Milorad Vasić consent - false parental position from the 1979 void adoption record

This document is the clean double-adoption bridge. In 1979 the child enters the adoption procedure as Miletić Milivoj and is administratively rewritten as Vasić Milan. In 1984, Milorad Vasić uses that generated parental position to consent to a new adoption. CSR Novi Sad receives that consent as a valid parental input instead of reopening the original identity, the biological line, Cvita Miletić, Pavle / Pál Lakatoš, and the probate trace.

The father of the minor VASIĆ MILAN gave consent for the adoption on 12 September 1984 on the premises of the Centre for Social Work of the City of Novi Sad, and also stated that he did not wish to attend the adoption hearing; for those reasons he was not summoned to the hearing.

Milorad Vasić does not appear as a biological father of Milivoj Miletić. He appears as the administrative father of Vasić Milan, a position produced by the contested 1979 full-adoption record. The phrase “my minor son Vasić Milan” is therefore not a neutral parental statement. It is the use of a status generated by the first adoption to authorize a second adoption.

The response expressly does not dispute the contents or authenticity of Milorad Vasić’s consent record of 12 September 1984. The linked record allows his words to be checked directly. The author’s challenge concerns the legal validity of that consent after the 1979 full adoption; non-dispute of the record’s contents is separate from that legal issue.

In the plaintiff’s aforementioned submission, in **Section II**, entitled **Proposals for Evidence and Official Documents**, at **point 5**, the plaintiff requested from the defendant the record of **12 September 1984** (Milorad Vasić’s statement concerning “consent to the adoption of the minor Vasić Milan”). Regarding this, the **plaintiff** states that the record was **submitted with the statement of claim and designated as attachment no. 11** (on page 30 of the statement of claim), and that the defendant does not dispute its contents or authenticity.

This document is the clean double-adoption bridge. In 1979 the child enters the adoption procedure as Miletić Milivoj and is administratively rewritten as Vasić Milan. In 1984, Milorad Vasić uses that generated parental position to consent to a new adoption. CSR Novi Sad receives that consent as a valid parental input instead of reopening the original identity, the biological line, Cvita Miletić, Pavle / Pál Lakatoš, and the probate trace.

The plaintiff challenges treating Milorad Vasić’s 12 September 1984 consent as the act of a father entitled to place the child for another adoption. The linked record preserves the actual roles, wording and Vera Radovanović’s involvement.

## Source page 14 - effectively presents the first adoptive parent, Vasić Milorad, as the holder of parental rights who “gives consent” to a new adoption; - thereby creates the appearance of a “first”, regular adoption, as though the child had no previous adoptive parents; whereas, in reality: - the law prohibits double adoption — Article 7; - the previous full adoption of 1979 already exists and produces effects. In this way: - the second adoptive parents, Periša and Gorgina Petrović, are deceived: they are given the impression that they are receiving a child with valid consent from the “old father”, instead of a precise legal explanation that the child is already fully adopted by the first married couple and that the law does not recognize “readoption”; - violent manipulation of the child’s identity continues: a child already erased as Palika Lakatoš and renamed Vasić Milan is now further “transferred” into another family, with a newly altered line of belonging; - the guardianship body effectively behaves as though it owns the child and his identity: first name, surname, family status and affiliation are changed, while the first adoptive parent is presented as a “father” whenever needed merely to satisfy the condition of “parental consent” on paper. When the guardianship body: - holds the negative assessment from the psychologist of the Centre for Social Work in Kragujevac, stating that adoption is not recommended; - knows that full adoption from 1979 already exists; - nevertheless organizes the first adoptive parent’s “consent” as though he were the biological father, to create an appearance of legality before the second family, this is no longer an ordinary “omission”, but: - a conscious and continuing violation of the law; - involving deception of the second adoptive parents too; - and further continuation of the forced assimilation of a child whose identity changes to suit the case file, rather than in accordance with the law and his rights. I therefore propose that the Court: 1. clearly establish that double adoption in 1979 and 1984 is contrary to Article 7 of the 1976 Adoption Act of the Socialist Autonomous Province of Vojvodina; 2. establish that disregard of the negative psychological assessment from 1984 and manufacture of the first adoptive parent’s “consent” as a “father” prove that the defendant acted not as a body protecting a child, but as a body disposing of a child and his identity; 3. treat all of this as evidence of the continuity of unlawful conduct, rather than isolated technical errors.

This document is the clean double-adoption bridge. In 1979 the child enters the adoption procedure as Miletić Milivoj and is administratively rewritten as Vasić Milan. In 1984, Milorad Vasić uses that generated parental position to consent to a new adoption. CSR Novi Sad receives that consent as a valid parental input instead of reopening the original identity, the biological line, Cvita Miletić, Pavle / Pál Lakatoš, and the probate trace.